From: "Geo." 

"Monte Davis"  wrote in message
news:daapr25vb7r4c3cc16lhm2invj5k82jetq{at}4ax.com...

> I'm trying to look at fifty years in space and understand how and why
> we (the species as well as the US) are where we are:  very broadly,
> why a relatively fast pace 1957-1969 turned to a relatively slow one
> 1969-2007... if you like, why the scenario of "2001" didn't come about
> on schedule and won't come about any time soon.

I can answer that one with a word, leadership.

Once we landed on the moon the goal that was set for nasa had been
attained. Nobody has set a new goal and a new goal date since then. This
moon base mars thing is a joke, it's more of a hope than a goal. Did you
notice the excitement when the public thought Bush was going to set a goal
for nasa then he did nothing then a week or two later he announces the mars
thing because his administration realized they failed to meet the public's
expectations.

Nasa needs a clear, attainable, challenging goal with a set time frame.
Without that they work at research pace instead of production pace.

With a goal comes proper funding though, and that's the tough part. You
can't pour money into nasa in the hopes of bring home a bunch of rocks that
are just like the rocks we have. The goal has to be viable, has to include
the promise of a future.

> One widespread view is that we lost the magic mojo of the early years
> -- that our Apollo-launching forefathers were mighty men, we've lost
> their inspiring vision, etc.

What we have lost is leadership.

> I'm arguing that in fact that was the tip of the iceberg: that 3/4 of
> the real cost was a de facto R&D "subsidy" from the strategic arms
> race (call it "dual-use" technology, which was Adam's original point)
> and that after the 1960s, most of that defense spending turned to
> other areas that no longer advanced civilian space capabilities as
> well. So civilian space slowed down after the 1960s? Well, duh...

This is actually a very interesting idea that I had not considered before.
If you take what we spent on NASA plus what we spent on defense, its vastly
more than the 6%GNP that is what is usually assumed to be the cost of the
space program during the 60's.

However this could be done today. Today we don't have an arms race but we
do have an energy race. A deep space program that requires lots of long
term energy sources like nuclear or solar, high efficiency and reuse, and
high output storage of energy might fit very nicely with energy research
here on earth. Perhaps instead of the defense industry nasa should be
working with the auto industry?

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5